Twelve Angry Men

                   Last Monday the Transition Years saw the movie “Twelve Angry Men” by Sidney Lumet and Reginald Rose. Heralded as one of the all-time great cinematic releases, "12 Angry Men" focuses on a jury's deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-man jury is sent to begin work in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused in the stabbing to death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. It appears to be open and shut case: The defendant has a knife he claimed to have lost and is then found at the murder scene, and witnesses said they either heard screaming, saw the killing or saw the boy fleeing the scene in a state of panic. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 (Mr. Davis) casts a not guilty vote. At first Mr. Davis casts his vote for the sake of discussion. After all, the jurors must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors’ complex personalities (which range from wise, bright, clever and sympathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Mr. Davis' attempts in convincing the other jurors that a "not guilty" verdict might be appropriate. At first since all voted guilty I personally think that if I was in Mr. Davis’ place I would have voted guilty and finished off the case since all the 11 had voted “guilty”. To top it all, the room was roasting, and it was sweaty as it was the hottest day of the year, and in these circumstances I don’t think anyone would like to have an argument about the case except Mr. Davis! But as Mr. Davis starts to argue about the case and starts to state the facts, I then realise what a mistake I would have done voting “guilty” as the votes had to be beyond reasonable doubt and here Mr. Davis was giving more and more facts and proof that the boy was not guilty. At first I thought that this movie would be very boring as it was an old black and white movie but as I started to watch it I found it really interesting. It also helped in broadening our knowledge about the world of law and how the discussions should be carried out. Furthermore, it prepared us for our law module. (Climaco Pinto)